Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged an order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 201B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, granting a stay for 20 days of an order dated 28.07.2025 by the Block Development Officer (BDO) which had disqualified Respondents 1 to 4 under Section 55(4) read with Section 12(1)(d) of the Act. The Petitioner, the original complainant before the Village Panchayat of Rumdamol Davorlim, alleged that Respondents 1 to 4, elected members of the Panchayat, had participated in a meeting on 18.01.2024 and passed resolutions regarding illegal constructions undertaken by their close relatives, despite having a pecuniary interest in the subject matter. Following complaints, the Petitioner filed an application before the BDO on 04.10.2024 seeking disqualification. The BDO passed an order on 28.07.2025 disqualifying Respondents 1 to 4. Aggrieved, they filed a revision before the District Court, which granted the impugned stay. The Petitioner contended that the District Court should not have granted a blanket stay because disqualification renders the seats vacant and fresh elections must be conducted, and the stay directly interferes with the election process and confers voting rights on disqualified members. Alternatively, the Petitioner argued that even if a stay was warranted, it should have been conditional upon restraining the disqualified members from participating in meetings or voting. The Petitioner relied on judgments including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Pandurang Dagadu Parte v. Ramchandra Baburao Hirve, and Rupesh Ravindra Sakharkar v. Narendra Madhukar Kambekar. Respondents 1 to 4 supported the stay, arguing that the District Court had considered the BDO order lacked specific findings on relationship and pecuniary interest, and that democratically elected members should not be easily dislodged unless disqualification is conclusively proved. They also contended that the higher forum has inherent power to grant stay and that the District Court rightly considered the scheduled elections for Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch, where the stay would allow their participation. They cited several cases including Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar, Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector. The judgment text provided ends abruptly during the hearing, with a statement by the Advocate General that elections had been deferred. The final decision and reasoning of the High Court are not available in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court erred in granting a blanket stay of disqualification order without imposing conditions restraining the disqualified members from participating in Panchayat meetings or voting; whether stay of disqualification interferes with fresh elections; scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 201B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to grant stay.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 55(4) read with Section 12(1)(d) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- power of revisional court under Section 201B to grant stay
- requirement of conditions when staying disqualification
- interference with election process
- judicial review of stay orders
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (08) 83
Writ Petition No.321 of 2025
Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, Mr. Parag Rao, Mr. Jay Mathew, Mr. Devidas Pangam, Mr. Tukaram Gawas
Mrs Mubina Bi Faniband, Mr Mohammed Samiulla Faniband, Mr Mohammed Mustafa Dodmani, Mrs Zubeda Bi Abubakar Agasar, Mr Mohammed Ali Agasar, The Village Panchayat of Rumdamol Davorlim, The BDO South Goa, State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the District Court granting stay of disqualification order passed by Block Development Officer under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the District Court's stay order or, alternatively, imposition of conditions restraining the disqualified members from participating in Panchayat meetings and voting.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the District Court erred in granting a blanket stay of disqualification without considering the effect on fresh elections and without imposing conditions to prevent disqualified members from exercising rights as members.
Previous Decisions
Block Development Officer passed order dated 28.07.2025 disqualifying Respondents 1-4; District Court in revision granted stay for 20 days on 02.08.2025.
Issues
Whether the District Court erred in granting a blanket stay of disqualification order without imposing conditions restraining the disqualified members from participating in Panchayat meetings or voting.
Whether a stay of disqualification interferes with the process of fresh elections to the vacant seats.
Whether the revisional court has the power to grant stay of disqualification and if so, the scope of such power under Section 201B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that disqualification renders seats vacant and fresh elections must be conducted; stay directly interferes with elections and confers voting rights on disqualified members.
Petitioner alternatively argued that even if stay is granted, conditions should be imposed to restrain Respondents 1-4 from participating in meetings or voting.
Respondents argued that the District Court considered the BDO order lacked specific findings on relationship and pecuniary interest, justifying stay.
Respondents argued that democratically elected members should not be easily dislodged unless disqualification is conclusively proved.
Respondents argued that the higher forum has power to grant stay and the District Court considered the pending elections for Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch, where stay would allow participation.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition takes exception to an order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the District Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 201B of the Panchayat Raj Act (the Act) has granted the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, a stay for 20 days, of an order dated 28.07.2025 of the Block Development Officer (BDO) holding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stood disqualified in terms of the provision under Sub Section 4 of Section 55 read with clause (d) of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act.
The main ground raised in the petition is that the District Court ought not to have granted a stay of a disqualification order, and if it was of the opinion that the order was required to be stayed, it ought to have made the order conditional upon restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from participating in any meetings of the Panchayat or taking any decisions or voting in such meetings.
It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 was elected as a Sarpanch and Respondent No. 2 was elected as a Deputy Sarpanch of the Panchayat.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed complaints before Village Panchayat alleging illegal constructions by relatives of Respondents 1-4. At Panchayat meeting on 18.01.2024, Respondents 1-4 participated and passed resolutions despite alleged conflict of interest. On 04.10.2024, Petitioner filed application before BDO seeking disqualification. BDO passed order on 28.07.2025 disqualifying Respondents 1-4. Respondents 1-4 filed Revision before District Court under Section 201B. District Court passed impugned order on 02.08.2025 granting stay for 20 days. Director of Panchayats called elections for Sarpanch/Deputy Sarpanch on 29.07.2025, to be held 04.08.2025. Revision filed on 30.07.2025. BDO wrote letter on 04.08.2025 stating unable to conduct election due to sickness; elections deferred.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 201B, Section 55(4), Section 12(1)(d)
